Just finished...Feb. 26th, 2010...
..........................................................
I was in a used book store the other day and I saw a book on the shelf that drew my attention (actually a couple but I will focus on this one here and now).
Now the question might be asked -- as I will now: Why, out of thousands of books in this one bookstore, with rows upon rows of books on many different bookshelves, was my attention drawn to this particular book? Was it coincidence? Or was my 'sensory-stimulus system' picking up something in my environment that would not necessarily interest anyone else in the bookstore at that time?
I opt for the latter explanation because it has happened to me over and over again in my life. The book that I tend to buy at any one moment is generally based on 'impulse' which in turn is based on 'interest', or to use a term that Freud used at different times in his writing, 'cathexis', which basically means 'interest charged with energy' (that may be redundant -- isn't all 'interest', 'interest charged with greater or lesser quanties and/or qualities of energy' which Freud perhaps inappropriately reduced to 'libido or sexual energy'?)
.................................................................................................................................................
Cathexis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (with full appreciation...)
In psychodynamics, cathexis is defined as the process of investment of mental or emotional energy in a person, object, or idea.[1] The Greek term 'cathexis' was chosen by James Strachey to render the German term 'Besetzung' in his translations of Sigmund Freud's complete works. In psychoanalysis, cathexis is the libido's charge of energy. Freud often described the functioning of psychosexual energies in mechanical terms, influenced perhaps by the dominance of the steam engine at the end of the 19th century. In this manner, he also tended to think of the libido as a producer of energies.
Freud often represented frustration in libidinal desires as a blockage of energies that have, or would eventually build up and require release in alternative ways. This release could occur, for example, by way of regression and the "re-cathecting" of former positions, that is, fixation at the oral phase or anal phase and the enjoyment of former sexual objects ("object-cathexes"), including autoeroticism.
When the ego blocks such efforts to discharge one's cathexis by way of regression, that is, when the ego wishes to repress such desires, Freud uses the term "anti-cathexis" or counter-charge.[2] Like a steam engine, the libido's cathexis then builds up until it finds alternative outlets, which can lead to sublimation or to the formation of sometimes disabling symptoms.
...................................................................................................................................................
In my own particular case example with the book, if I had grabbed the book, looked at it, decided it didn't look very exciting afterall, or that I couldn't afford it at this time, then we could say that a 'counter' or 'anti'-cathexis was now at work in my mind, dialectically playing off against the initial cathexis ('impulse energy') of my interest in the book.
We can see the 'Hegelian underpinnings' of at least part of Freud's thinking and work here: 'thesis' equals 'initial cathexis'; 'anti' or 'counter' thesis equals 'anti' or 'counter' cathexis which in turn equals 'restraint', 'defense', 'repression', 'suppression', 'denial', 'holding in' or 'holding down' particular impulses...
And often a cathexis (i.e., an interest-energy-impulse-drive) and a counter-cathexis (restraint, defense...) come together in a synthesized or integrative fashion in the form of a 'compromise', a 'compromise-formation' (a Freudian term) or a 'conflict-resolution'...
To go back to my book example, if I wanted the book but told myself that I couldn't afford it at this time, then this would be an example of a 'backward moving' counter-cathexis, in effect, 'dominating' or 'taking control over' a 'forward-moving' cathexis (i.e., an interest-energy-impulse-drive).
When we say, in effect...'I want to...but...'... the cathexis is attached to the 'want' as opposed to the counter-cathexis which is attached to the 'but'...and everything after it...
The cathexis is attached to the 'I wish to approach' part of a desire whereas the counter-cathexis is attached to the 'avoidance' part of a significant fear...
Thus, an 'approach-avoidance conflict' can also be viewed as a 'dialectical battle between a cathexis and a counter-cathexis'.
Unfortunately, Freud did not always think in a dialectical manner -- nor did Nietzsche before him. In fact, they both got into some trouble when they wandered away from dialectic thinking and dialectic logic: Nietzsche when he left 'The Birth of Tragedy' behind him and complained years later that it was 'too Hegelian'; Freud, in contrast got into trouble when he got caught in an 'either/or' battle between his 'traumacy-seduction' theory and his later 'fantasy-childhood sexuality-Oedipal' theory.
Hegel wrote -- and I entirely agree with him -- that 'every theory carries the seeds of its own self-destruction'. Every theory is inherently self-contradictory, or at least partly so. No theory can claim to be 100 percent right all the time because if it was, it would not be a theory; rather, it would be a 'fact', or it would be 'the truth'.
Theories are based on generalizations and generalizations can never be 100 per cent true (except this one, of course). Generalizations are called generalizations because they are 'generally true'. Not always true. But generally true. Thus, every generalization and every theory can easily become a 'fighting ground', a 'battle field' between the 'yes sayers' and the 'no sayers'. Between the 'supporters' and the 'detractors'. Between the 'constructionists' and the 'deconstructionists'. Between the 'optimists' and the 'pessimists'. Between the 'liberals' and the 'conservatives'. Between 'The 'Democrats' and 'The Republicans'.
Heads or tails? The Republicans pick 'heads'; the Democrats pick tails.
Modern day politics is based on a combination of 'unilateral-either/or thinking' and 'dialectic-integrative thinking'. The Republicans speak their ideology. (And even each and every Republican will be partly different in the 'Republican Ideology' that he or she believes in. Thus, we can differentiate between 'Personal Republican Ideology' and 'Party Republican Ideology'. The Party generally wants to be perceived to be 'united' by the time it gets to election time.
And same with The Democrat Party. But individual ideological differences -- even within the same party -- are the norm, not the exception. And over time, both personal and party ideology can -- and does change --as well. It might be come more 'centralized' or 'more extremist right or left' depending on the party and the context of the time and the situation. Also, it not uncommon for citizens to 'gravitate to the left' or 'gravitate to the right' depending on who is in power -- for example Bush or Obama -- and what 'extremist political mistakes' the particular party -- Republican or Democrat -- might be making when they are in power. The following election is most likely to be 'dialectically compensatory' against the perceived political mistakes of the Party in power.
With the Obama election there was a huge 'anti-war' push by the electorate; next election there will likely be a huge compensatory movement back towards 'the right' and The Republican Party in an effort to 'reduce the perceived mistake of Obama's astronomical spending spree'. Indeed, we can already see this 'compensatory electorate push to the right' in effect. It is the nature of politics and 'dialectic political evolution'. )
We wandered away from Psychoanalysis and the 'paradox-riddle' that Freud didn't properly work his way through: the seemingly unresolvable differences between his traumacy-seduction theory (1895,96) and his later fantasy-childhood sexuality-dream-and Oedipal Theory (1897-1905, and beyond).
And sitting in the middle of both theories -- indeed, the bridge between the two seemingly paradoxical theories -- were two other theories that were not fully developed until years later but, between the two of them, held the answer to the riddle of this 115 year old problem. These were his 'Transference Theory' and his 'Narcissistic Theory'...and then in the 1950s and 1960s, Kohut bridging the gap between these two latter theories with his concept of 'Narcissistic Transferences' (two concepts that Freud thought were mutually exclusive, in that he thought that a narcissistic person couldn't develop a 'transference relationship with anyone -- he or she was too absorbed in him or herself. In contrast, Kohut argued, and I agree with Kohut, as do most, if not all, Psychoanalysts these days, will build on his argument: specifically, that narcissism is learned in childhood just like love or anything else is, and a 'pampered' child, a 'neglected' child, a 'rejected' child, and/or an 'abandoned' child can all learn narcissism, meaning self-centredness and/or self-absorption, as a form of self-defense and/or as a mode of dealing with the world and with people, or by pulling away from people, either through introjection, identification, and/or compensation -- in the latter case, such as from a broken heart.)
Narcissistic people are often self-made from the relationship remnants of their own broken hearts. A band of 'character armor' goes up around their heart...and relationships continue with a lot more narcissistic self-protection dominating their personal interactions...
And/or narcissistic parents pass on their narcissism to their kids by way of 'introjection' and/or 'identification' -- see below -- i.e., through what their kids see or hear in their parents actions and/or words.
Child sees, child does. If his or her parents are 'into themselves' for extended periods of time, with an absence of relationship contact, so too will be the child or children who choose/s to copy the narcissistic parent...
Now overcompensating for this perceived danger can be just as bad...
As in everything, balance is the name of the game here...
Let us all be reminded that 'healthy self and social behavior' demands an integrative balance of 'healthy self-assertiveness' (modified narcissism) with 'healthy social sensitivity' (empathy, listening, caring, altruism, love...)
Which brings us to the essence, the multiple bi-polarity, and the paradox of DGB Quantum Psychoanalysis.
The name 'quantum' was taken from the example of the physics and energy model of the same name which integrated two preceding models before it in 'classic Hegelian (thesis/anti-thesis/synthesis) style': i.e., specifically the 'particle' model of matter/energy, followed by the 'wave' model of matter/energy. Neither model work as well by itself as both of them did when they were integrated together.
The book I pulled out of the library was called: 'Ageless Body, Timeless Mind: The Quantum Alternative to Growing Old' by Deepak Chopra, M.D.
I may read the book, I may not. But obviously, I was/am not the only theorist outside of physics who became attracted to the 'quantum' model as it might be used on a broader field than it was originally intended -- such as the field of psychology, philosophy, medicine, politics, spirituality...and life in general...
Back to Psychoanalysis.
How are the ideas of 'narcissism' and 'transference' the connecting bridge between Freud's (1895-1896) Traumacy-Seduction Theory and Freud's later (1897-1905, and beyond...) Fantasy-Childhood Sexuality-Oedipal-Dream Theory?
The connection goes something like this:
Childhood memories of traumatic events and resulting 'narcissistic (self-esteem) injuries' stimulate 'deep emotional learning processes' -- which in its broadest sense can be called 'transferences'. (See Brian Bird's famous article on transference called: Notes on Transference: Universal Phenomenon and Hardest Part of Analysis, 1972, as well as Freud's classic two papers: The Dynamics of Transference, 1912, and Observations on Transference-Love, 1915, all of which can be found in the book, Essential Papers on Transference, 1990, edited by Aaron Esman, New York University Press.)
Now in DGB Quantum Psychoanalysis there are many different types of transferences, some of which go well beyond what is usually called transference in Classic Psychoanalysis, or Object Relations, or even Self Psychology.
Some of these transferences, I will list below:
1. 'Phobic' Transferences (a fear of anything associated with a particularly bad -- usually childhood but not always -- memory, or some particular 'bad object' within the memory. For example, in a sexual assault memory that could mean 'closed spaces' or 'open spaces' or anything else that might be associated with the memory -- and the assault).
2. 'Paranoid' Transferences (a fear of particular or more generalized type of person associated with a particularly bad -- usually childhood but not always -- memory).
3. 'Counter-Phobic' Transferences (a fear/attraction and a 'positive' as well as 'negative' cathexis to a particular type of person, event, or object associated with a particularly bad -- usually but not always -- childhood memory. A 'rejecting' childhood transference figure becomes generalized and metaphorically or symbolically 'transferred' onto another similar type of person in adult and we are both scared of, and excited by, this 'adult rendition' of our 'childhood transference figure'. This can result in strong 'erotic' and/or 'romantic' transferences).
4. 'Distancing' Transferences (We stay away from our feared adult rendition of our feared childhood transference figure).
5. 'Anal Schizoid' Transferences (Similar to distancing transferences, perhaps more exaggerated and pronounced, referring more to the 'strongly self-controlled, reserved, withdrawn, uncontactful type of person who shuts him or herself off from the world).
6. 'Oral Nurturing' Transferences (identifications with a 'strong, nurturing adult role model in childhood -- maternal and/or paternal -- which is then 'transferred over into the child's own adult behavior).
7. 'Rebellious' Transferences (identifications with a strong rebellious role model in childhood that is then 'transferred over into the child's own adult behavior'; and/or a 'compensatory transference reaction' to a strong, childhood controlling authority figure which is then 'transferred into the child's own adult behavior.
8. 'Approval-Seeking' Transferences (a 'submissive' response learned in childhood usually in the presence of a strong, controlling authority figure that is then 'transferred onto adult authority figures in the child's own adult life).
9. 'Identification' Transferences (Copying the external behavior of some role-model in childhood that is then 'transferred over into the child's own adult behavior').
10. 'Introjective' Transferences (Internalizing the inner 'character-traits', ideas, beliefs, values, feelings, impulses, and/or counter-impulses of childhood role models that are then 'transferred into the child's later adult life).
11. 'Projective' Transferences (Projecting onto others what we ourselves are, want to be, are afraid to be, despise to be, as well as projecting onto others the characteristics of our childhood role models and transference figures -- 'positive', 'negative' and 'ambivalent', the latter meaning both).
12. 'Compensatory' Transferences (Making 'adjustments' in our own ideas, beliefs, values, feelings, impulses, and counter-impulses in order to 'accommodate' and/or 'retaliate' against the behavior of our childhood role models and transference figures which are then 'transferred years later onto 'adult renditions' of these earlier childhood transference figures).
13. 'Transference Reversals' ('Identification with The Aggressor, Rejector, Abandoner...') When we traumatize others as adults the way we were traumatized as children...
Our childhood traumacy scenes and memories never disappear; we keep 're-projecting' them into our adult lives over and over and over again, usually til we die. This is what Freud referred to as the 'repetition compulsion'. The repetition compulsion becomes interlinked with the 'mastery compulsion' when we 're-create' our childhood transference scenes over and over and over again in order to 'master' our childhood traumacies, fears, weaknesses, inferiorities, and 'rejecting transference figures'.
Sometimes this works; sometimes it doesn't. When this 'neurotic and often erotic' strategy works we are often 'ecstatic' -- in the throes of having mastered one of our worst childhood nightmares and fears. When it doesn't work, we generally feel 'emotionally crushed' -- in the throes of our childhood nightmare scene played out all over again according to our own usually 'subconscious cathexes' with the same negative emotions that we experienced in childhood destroying our self-esteem all over again...
This is what we call here a 'transference complex, neurosis -- and game'.
When we 'win' the game, we are emotionally ecstatic.
When we 'lose' the game, we are emotionally destroyed.
In this regard, we all suffer to some greater extent or another the syndrome of 'bi-polarity disorder'.
All transference complexes contain 'multiple bi-polar possiblities for thinking, feeling, wanting, doing...',
We are all -- to differing degrees -- manic-depressive...
When we are in the throes of our 'positive' and 'negative' transferences,
And we feel like a ball in a pinball machine...
Transference is -- with constant modifications and evolutons along the way -- a lifelong 'game',
Still, it is a worthwhile enterprise to develop a full and complete awareness and understanding of...
The most personal details of our own 'neurotic/erotic transference complexes',
This awareness may or may not be enough...
To step away from the strongest impulses of our 'transference complexes gone wild'...
We can choose -- or not choose -- to...
Get off our lifelong emotional roller coaster ride...
The question is, and always will be,
'Is the neurotic and erotic element of our own personal transference roller coaster ride,
Too overwhelming to battle against,
Even knowing fully well the potential for an emotional crash and sense of self-destruction ,
When we are lying in a heap,
At the bottom of our own personalized roller coaster crash.
Emotionally and/or physically battered and bruised...
In short, like an addict on any drug,
Are the 'highs' worth the 'lows'?
Or the 'lows' worth the 'highs'...
That is the nature of a full-blooded approach-avoidance, love-hate, romantic-erotic transference complex.
If we are going to risk the emotionally dangerous ride that we set ourselves up for,
Then we need to learn how to accept and/or at least tolerate the 'lows' of the ride (mainly by limiting the extent of our 'negative self-talk'...and stop connecting our present with our past...our past and present always have significant differences attached to them...if only the difference between being a naive child and a more 'street-wise' adult...),
If we can't accept or tolerate the lows of our 'transference crashes'...
Then obviously it would be prudent to get off a ride that we don't know how to play safely...
But telling a 'transference addict' to get off his or her 'transference ride' is like trying to persuade a drug addict that he or she doesn't need his or her drug of choice...
The talk is much easier than the action...unless the action is supported by the transference obsessive-compulsion...in which case our danger awareness flags need to go up...
This is how 'childhood traumacy' meets 'adult seduction' in the same person.
Specifically, we aim to 'seduce' an adult rendition of our childhood 'transference rejector' in order to 'undo' and/or to 'reverse' and 'master' the 'self-esteem damage' within us done in childhood by our infamous -- but still 'exciting' -- childhood rejecting object (or transference figure). The childhood rejecting object/transference figure may or may not be in our lives anymore but we have found a new 'exciting/rejecting object/transference figure' to take our childhood antagonist's place...
Call this our own version of a Greek or Shakespearian romantic-dramatic...tragedy...
Or in the words of Nietzsche,
Our own particular,
'Birth of Tragedy'.
Great potential creativity and self-destruction,
All tied up together in one package,
Lying side by side,
In our Transference Memory and Complex Template,
Self-contradiction in the centre of our personality,
In classic Hegelian Dialectic Fashion....
Our 'thesis' lying right beside our 'anti-thesis'...
Our 'ego' working right next door to our 'alter-ego'...
Providing a constantly evolving template of ongoing cognitive, emotional, and behavioral paradox,
In a Freudian sense, a 'life and death impulse' playing off against each other,
Our whole life....
The unfolding of our own personal dialectic,
This is the paradox of the transference neurosis and complex,
The essence of the paradox of the human personality unfolding...
Good luck, my friend...
May your own particular transference complex...
Take you to more good places than bad...
The 'seemingly accidental' and 'subconsciously purposeful' collision of relationships -- in both a positive and negative sense -- is as inevitable as the crash of the ocean waves on the rocks of a beach cliff...
The collision of positive and negative transference factors, combined with the here-and-now immediacy of everyday interactions and encounters, is as inevitable as the change from day to night,
As inevitable as the cyclical attraction and repulsion of different types of molecules...
Protons and electrons,
Protons and protons,
Electrons and electrons,
With neutrons providing the foundational base...
From which protons and electrons play out their dialectical (diabolical?) game...
We meet, and if the 'chemistry' is there -- we develop our areas of similarities and differences, until they collide...in the transference...
We either work through them, or we don't,
Passion, intimacy, and/or resentment provides the remnants of the collision of relationship transferences...
From both a personal and a relationship standpoint,
The lifelong questions -- at least for people interested in Quantum Psychoanalysis -- become:
Are we in control of our transferences?
Or are they in control of us?
Will we play out our transferences subconsciously?
Or will we seek to develop a greater transference awareness?
Such that we can steer our transferences where we want to go...
Rather than our transferences steering us...
Where we don't want to go...
Which, in our worst case scenario, is that self-destructive heap at the bottom of our own personalized roller coaster crash...
Our metaphorical return to the scene of our worst childhood nightmare-traumacy...
We do have personal choice in this matter, although far too often it may not seem like it...
Every encounter can be played out differently...
That is the freedom of being human...
-- dgb, Feb. 24th-26th, 2010.
-- David Gordon Bain
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
-- Are Still in Process...
